The statutes generally require the evidence of the complainant to be corroborated; State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644, 16 S. W. 511 ; but as to what must be corroborated there is much confusion; State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325 (Gil. 241); People v. Kearney, 110 N. Y. 188, 17 N. E. 736; Wilson v. State, 73 Ala. 527.
The seduction of a married woman is known as crinni/nal conversation, for which the hus band has an action against the seducer ; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 40. In England the statute 20 and 21 Vict. ch. 85, § 59, deprives the hus band of the action but allows him damages in a suit for divorce where the seducer is made co-respondent. See Cam. CON.
As to the seduction or alienation of a hus band's affections, see ENTICE.
At common law the woman herself has no action for damages, though practically the end is reached by a suit for breach of prom ise of marriage, in many cases, but in some states the rule has been altered by statute.) The parent, as being entitled to the services of his daughter, may maintain an action in many cases grounded upon that right, but' only in such cases ; 6 M. & W. 55 ; McDaniel v. Edwards, 29 N. C. 408, 47 Am. Dec. 331; Lee v. Hodges, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 726; Vossel v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634, 47 Am. Dec. 136; Lawyer v. Fritcher, 130 N. Y. 239, 29 N. E. 267, 14 L. R. A. 700, 27 Am. St. Rep. 521. (But this rule was not followed in Baumann v. Kusian, 164 Cal. 582, 129 Pac. 986, 44 L. R. A. [N. S.] 757; Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. C. 215, 16 S. E. 397.) In England the parent's right of action ter minates when the child leaves the parent's house without the intention of returning; 5 East 45; where an employer seduces the maid, no action lies; [1901] 2 K. B. 722; the maid is no longer the servant of her parent ; 36 Ir. L. T. R. 189; but in America the right of ac tion depends on the will of the parent, not the child; if he has not divested himself of a right to require his child's services, he may recover, even though at the time of the in jury she was in another's service with his permission; Martin v. Payne, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 387, 6 Am. Dec. 288; s. c. Big. L. C. Torts 286; Simpson v. Grayson, 54 Ark. 404, 16 S. W. 4, 26 Am. St. Rep. 52 ; otherwise if his power over the child was gone at the time of the seduction. If the control was divested by fraud, the parent has still a right of action; 2 Stark. 493. Specific acts of service are not necessary tc a right of action: the right to the service is enough; Big. Torts 146. The right of action continues after the majority of the child, if the relation of master and servant continues; Sutton v. Huffman, 32 N.
J. L. 58; Hahn v. Cooper, 84 Wis. 629, 54 N. W. 1022; Bayles v. Burgard, 48 Ill. App. 371. It is not necessary that pregnancy should en sue ; Big. Torts 147 ; contra, 1 Exch. 61; where the proper consequence of the defend ant's act was a loss of the child's" health, re sulting in an incapacity for service, an ac tion lies; Abrahams v. Kidney, 104 Mass. 222, 6 Am. Rep. 220; especially where sexual disease is communicated to the child; Big. Torts 147. The daughter's consent does not affect the parent's right to recover; Damon v. Moore, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 454. if the mother, after the father's death, is the child's guardi an, she has a right of action; Big. Torts 149; apart from the mother's guardianship, she has a right of action so long as the daughter continues to give her services to her mother. See Gray v. Durland, 51 N. Y. 424. Where the daughter in her illness returns to her mother and is taken care of by her, the moth er may sue for the seduction ; Sargent v. —, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 106; contra, South v. Dennis ton, 2 Watts (Pa.) 474 ; Roberts v. Connelly, 14 Ala. 235. See, generally, as to the moth er's right of action, Big. L. C. Torts 302. Any one standing in loco parentis, and entitled to, or receiving, in his own right, the services of a minor, is entitled to maintain the action ; Big. Torts 152; 2 C. & P. 303. If the parent consented to the seduction, or rendered it easy by his misconduct or neglect, he cannot recover; Peake 240; Big. Torts 151.
While the loss of services is the gist of the action, yet, when that has once been es tablished, the jury may give damages com mensurate with the real injury inflicted on the plaintiff. See Big. L. C. Torts 294.
See PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
It is competent to show that the seduced yielded to defendant's solicitations under promise of marriage ; Badder v. Keefer, 91 Mich. 611, 52 N. W. 60 ; but the mere promise of marriage as the inducement is not suffi cient, where she was not seduced by any arts, wiles, or blandishments ; State v. Reeves, 97 Mo. 668, 10 S. W. 841, 10 Am. St. Rep. 349. The prosecutrix, on a trial for seduction under promise of marriage, may be permitted to testify that she yielded in re liance upon the promise ; Ferguson v. State, 71 Miss. 805, 15 South. 66, 42 Am. St. Rep. 492 ; Kenyon v. People, 26 N. Y. 203, 84 Am. Dec. 177; but she cannot be asked if she would have yielded in the absence of such a promise; Cook v. People, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 404.
SEE. The diocese of a bishop.